Should we LDS/Mormons acknowledge renounced doctrines instead of denying them?

Question

It seems like people like to bash us using old doctrines that the Church doesn't officially promote anymore, like the Blood Atonement, Adam-God, or Polygamy-Required-For-Exaltation doctrines... It almost seems to me that if we just acknowledged that our leaders used to teach this, they'd probably get bored of insulting us and find something better to do... no? It's kind of like the bullies that quit picking on the little kids when they quit crying about it and decide to be nice to the bullies.

What do you think?

Father K- Idaho also allows Firing Squad, and I think two other states do too, like Oregon (I think) and one other one.

Answer 1

I think that those that use these doctrines to attack our beliefs are simply intent on hate and intolerance. No amount of any kind of discussion will change the minds of those intent on bashing our religion.

I love this scripture, when dealing with such hateful people:
Matthew 7:1-7 (KJV)
Judge not, that ye be not judged.
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

If someone is truly curious about the validity of the church, all they have to do is pray with sincere faith to our Heavenly Father. He will let them know the truth. It's never worth arguing with non-believers about, as that simply breeds contention and chases the Spirit away.

Answer 2

The basic tenant, in fact the most important element of 'Morgdom' states emphatically it is the ONE AND ONLY TRUE CHURCH on the face of the planet. It received and still receives DIRECT REVELATION from God to real 'latter-day' prophets to this day. God is the same today as yesterday. The Book of Mormon is the MOST CORRECT BOOK in the world.
So why does God continue to horse with previous revelations, previous doctrine, grammar, spelling, et al. when his church is supposed to be "Perfect"? They've had over 200 years to 'Get it right'.
I've heard the mantra, "The Church is Perfect, but the people aren't". Apparently neither is his revealed word, nor the guys who 'revealed' are so hot either.
Also heard the excuse "The printer was 'anti-mormon' because he misspelled lots of common words" to make the word of god look like a backwoods country boy. Hmmm? Maybe he was...

Answer 3

i'm a Oneness believer, yet i've got confidence that SJC's answer has accurately defined Oneness doctrine. counting on who you ask, you will get a various answer from diverse human beings regarding precisely what "trinity" doctrine extremely skill, because of the fact it has developed over the years into the doctrine we see at present, however the widespread definition is: "God is one being who exists as 3 diverse persons who're coeternal, coequal, and one in essence or substance." As I are conscious of it, the Mormon doctrine of the Godhead is: "Latter-day Saints have confidence in God the daddy; his Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost (A of F a million). those 3 Gods sort the Godhead, which holds the keys of means over the universe. each member of the Godhead is an autonomous personage, separate and diverse from the different 2, the three being in appropriate team spirit and team spirit with one yet another" (Godhead - The Encyclopedia of Mormonism). So extremely, respected Trinitarian doctrine is unlike minded with the Mormon view on the Godhead; neither is Oneness doctrine. Apostolic Believer in one God, JESUS Edit @ Laffopuritain wrote, "computing gadget nut- then what's difference between a 'individual' and a 'being'? i don't know how God would be one being in 3 persons?" precisely! there is not any real difference, the only difference is a various observe on paper. this is between the main the clarification why I chosen to reject Trinitarian Christianity; that's thoroughly unintelligible, and the Bible says that God's human beings would be waiting to know Him.

Answer 4

The thing is, they were never doctrine. If they don't match up with scripture, then they are not doctrine and never were.

First, blood atonement; <
Several early Church leaders, most notably Brigham Young, taught that in a complete theocracy the Lord could require the voluntary shedding of a murderer's blood—presumably by capital punishment—as part of the process of Atonement for such grievous sin. This was referred to as "blood Atonement." Since such a theocracy has not been operative in modern times, the practical effect of the idea was its use as a rhetorical device to heighten the awareness of Latter-day Saints of the seriousness of murder and other major sins. This view is not a doctrine of the Church and has never been practiced by the Church at any time.

Early anti-Mormon writers charged that under Brigham Young the Church practiced "blood Atonement," by which they meant Church-instigated violence directed at dissenters, enemies, and strangers. This claim distorted the whole idea of blood atonement—which was based on voluntary submission by an offender—into a supposed justification of involuntary punishment. Occasional isolated acts of violence that occurred in areas where Latter-day Saints lived were typical of that period in the history of the American West, but they were not instances of Church-sanctioned blood Atonement.>>

Adam/God: http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/adam_god.htm

As for plural marriage required fo exaltation, it was more the BELIEF in it,than the actual practice, since most men were not eligible for a secnd wife, thru no fault of their own.

Answer 5

Absolutely! But at the same time, if you are going to finally admit to "progressive revelation" as you have just stated...then at least have the common decency to admit that that type of "progressive" changing of doctrines to suit the whims of history is NOT a Christian concept ... and that you are NOT just a quirky sect of Christianity. You preach a different "gospel" and another "Jesus", and not the ones found in Holy Scripture. Ergo....you are not a Christian denomination. Jos. Smith was MOST clear on that...as was Brother Brigham. Stop the charade!

Also - side question....if blood atonement is not a part of your doctrine....then why is Utah the only state that allows for "firing squad" as a method of capital punishment??

Answer 6

We do. It's called modern revelation. There was a piece of 19th century British literature I read that essentially said that religion is like clothes and when they wear out and serve their purpose, new religions need to come in and take their place. Through modern revelation, Mormonism essentially can adapt with the times, so that it never gets worn out per se. It teaches people how to tap into the divine and the energy found there never gets old. God works with humanity as it progresses.

[On a side note, I don't think the Adam-God theory was officially taught as doctrine, but I stand corrected if it was.]

Answer 7

I think that there is only one essential problem here. This is that, in the early days of the Church, the leaders participated in much religious speculation. There were many things that, though they were not doctrine, they ended up being taught regularly because they were speculated by a prophet.

The brethren in our days have realized the consequences that extreme religious speculation can have on the Church and its members.

In short, to answer the question, we should acknowledge that these things were taught in the church, but they were never inspired doctrine. Today the prophet leads us entirely without religious speculation, and everything taught is inspired by revelation.

Answer 8

I suppose the next time someone is bashing you and using one of those examples against you, you should try doing what you said and acknowleging the problem of the old doctrine, and see what happens.

Answer 9

If the church was truly run by divine revelation, then, the doctrines would never have to change. God's rules are universal and would apply all the time. If the church acknowledged these changes, then they would be showing that they are not divinely inspired.

Answer 10

I have never denied that those things were taught... I have also told others they are no longer taught, but that is never good enough for people. They always want something to hold over our heads. Oh well.
We know what we believe and God knows. To quote a last general conference talk: "The gospel is true - then what else matters?"